Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On the second question, there are changes in the Bill which mean that where a notice to quit is served on a tenant, the landlord must furnish that notice to the RTB within 28 days of the notice to quit period expiring. That allows the RTB, which is being given new powers, to follow up and inspect whether it was served for the reasons that it purportedly had been served. If it was not, there are new obligations on the landlord to re-offer that property to the tenant who was evicted. Even in the case of a family member coming into the property for a couple of months, the RTB has the right to go to the landlord and tell him that he is in breach of obligations and that he must go back to the tenant and offer him or her the property to occupy again. It is recognising that some landlords unfortunately will try to game the system under section 34 and get a family member in just for the reason of getting somebody out. This is to allow the RTB to follow up where that happens, and the new sanctioning regime for improper conduct by a landlord gives it the power to fine and do more, if necessary, where that has occurred.

With regard to Part 4, the Senator is correct in identifying the gap. The gap exists and that is why we must move to tenancies of indefinite duration. The gap is a legacy of how the law was built up since 2004. The 2004 Act introduced the Part 4 and Part 6 obligations that provided for all the new protections for tenants in terms of notice-to-quit periods, which we are extending here. The law was amended subsequent to that. One could step into that Part 4 agreement again and there would be an opportunity for the landlord, if he or she wished, to serve a notice to quit with no grounds. There is only one opportunity every six years to do that. We talk about successive Part 4 tenancies with one opportunity every six years.

Looking back, it seems odd that this would be case. Why would the tenant's rights diminish for a period and then be re-established? I suppose it was recognising that we were moving then, for the first time, to these types of protections and it was to try to find a balance, which seemed fair at the time, to allow the landlord to have that point at which to step out. Now, as we move towards transforming our rental sector we want landlords coming in and making a 20 or 30-year play, so there would be no need for that. However, where it was the small individual landlord with one property I am speculating that the reason was to allow the landlord to step out without any reason every six years. If the landlord does not invoke that, he or she cannot do it again for another six years and must comply with section 34. Tenancies of indefinite duration will change that when they are introduced in legislation.